10 Jan 09
Originally posted by black beetleoh beetle my trusty feer, RNA world theory it is not new, it was formulated in the nineteen eighties, you will notice there is no mention of how RNA came to be capable of running the complexity of a single cell,you will notice there is no mention of how the RNA came about, you will notice there is no mention where the energy came from, yet we are meant to delude ourselves into thinking that this mechanism was the catalyst for the staggering diversity of live that we see around us, that is truly delusional.
Creationism
is a delusion😵
you will also notice the same site speculates that the elements of life could have originated from outer space, this merely changes the location, but does not explain the origin of life.
and although the RNA world theory appears in many textbooks, most of it is nothing more than speculative optimism! but hey its good to be optimistic.
10 Jan 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI know nothing regarding the origin of life.
oh beetle my trusty feer, RNA world theory it is not new, it was formulated in the nineteen eighties, you will notice there is no mention of how RNA came to be capable of running the complexity of a single cell,you will notice there is no mention of how the RNA came about, you will notice there is no mention where the energy came from, yet we are mea ...[text shortened]... tbooks, most of it is nothing more than speculative optimism! but hey its good to be optimistic.
Yoy appear t know;
Please comment🙂
10 Jan 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThis lil picture of yours, my trusty feer,
oh beetle my trusty feer, RNA world theory it is not new, it was formulated in the nineteen eighties, you will notice there is no mention of how RNA came to be capable of running the complexity of a single cell,you will notice there is no mention of how the RNA came about, you will notice there is no mention where the energy came from, yet we are mea ...[text shortened]... tbooks, most of it is nothing more than speculative optimism! but hey its good to be optimistic.
is nice😵
11 Jan 09
Originally posted by sonhouseJoyce says that only when a system is developed in the lab that has the capability of evolving novel functions on its own can it be properly called life. "We're knocking on that door," he says, "But of course we haven't achieved that."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090109173205.htm
Gets us closer to a grand fight with creationists. A real fight this time, not war of words, the end of which is man made life from non-life.
You keepa knockin but you can't come in.
11 Jan 09
1 edit
Originally posted by black beetleread this beetle me ol son, just been watching the godfather 2, dont like violence but the story is good!
I know nothing regarding the origin of life.
Yoy appear t know;
Please comment🙂
In view of the DNA-RNA-protein team impasse, some researchers have offered “the RNA world” theory. What is that? Instead of asserting that DNA, RNA, and proteins originated simultaneously to produce life, they say that RNA by itself was the first spark of life. Is this theory sound?
In the 1980’s, researchers discovered in their laboratory that RNA molecules could act as their own enzymes by snipping themselves in two and splicing themselves back together. So it was speculated that RNA might have been the first self-replicating molecule. It is theorized that in time, these RNA molecules learned to form cell membranes and that finally, the RNA organism gave rise to DNA. “The apostles of the RNA world,” writes Phil Cohen in New Scientist, “believe that their theory should be taken, if not as gospel, then as the nearest thing to truth.”
Not all scientists, though, accept this scenario. Skeptics, observes Cohen, “argued that it was too great a leap from showing that two RNA molecules partook in a bit of self mutilation in a test tube, to claiming that RNA was capable of running a cell single-handed and triggering the emergence of life on Earth.”
There are other problems as well. Biologist Carl Woese holds that “the RNA world theory . . . is fatally flawed because it fails to explain where the energy came from to fuel the production of the first RNA molecules.” And researchers have never located a piece of RNA that can replicate itself from scratch. (this may have been solved as in sunhouses post, but the details need to be validated) There is also the issue of where RNA came from in the first place. Though “the RNA world” theory appears in many textbooks, most of it, says researcher Gary Olsen, “is speculative optimism.”
Another theory that some scientists have espoused is that our planet was seeded with life that came from outer space. But this theory does not really address the question, What originated life? Saying that life comes from outer space, notes science writer Boyce Rensberger, “merely changes the location of the mystery.” It does not explain the origin of life. It merely sidesteps the issue by relocating the origin to another solar system or galaxy. The real issue remains.
11 Jan 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieTheories are theories; it seems to me that for the time being the plexus of the origin of Life remains uknown at its whole; therefore there are no indications of a so called "creator"
read this beetle me ol son, just been watching the godfather 2, dont like violence but the story is good!
In view of the DNA-RNA-protein team impasse, some researchers have offered “the RNA world” theory. What is that? Instead of asserting that DNA, RNA, and proteins originated simultaneously to produce life, they say that RNA by itself was the ...[text shortened]... ps the issue by relocating the origin to another solar system or galaxy. The real issue remains.
We just know not yet, and maybe we ill never learn -or we will find out in the future; for the time being sonhouse and his miserable lot and the evaluation of the mind are more in my heart than the so called "holy scriptures"
Nothing Holy 😵
11 Jan 09
We just know not yet, and maybe we ill never learn -or we will find out in the future; for the time being sonhouse and his miserable lot and the evaluation of the mind are more in my heart than the so called "holy scriptures"
Funny, all this time I did not know I was miserable or that my lot was miserable! Now that you pointed it out I shall have to have a miserable day. Oh Misery, it was a good movie though🙂
11 Jan 09
Originally posted by sonhouseSure thing; I am nothing but a miserable atheist, me and my miserable lot😵
We just know not yet, and maybe we ill never learn -or we will find out in the future; for the time being sonhouse and his miserable lot and the evaluation of the mind are more in my heart than the so called "holy scriptures"
Funny, all this time I did not know I was miserable or that my lot was miserable! Now that you pointed it out I shall have to have a miserable day. Oh Misery, it was a good movie though🙂
And what a girl that Kathy! She radiated love😵
12 Jan 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou point out the fact that we do not yet know scientifically how life was created which is fine. But, the problem here is that you imply that the fact that “we do not yet know scientifically” means either we will never know scientifically or that there is something fundamentally wrong with any scientific hypothesis of the creation of life or that perhaps there is no possible scientific hypothesis of the creation of life -why else would you keep harping on about the fact we do not yet know? I am not sure exactly which of these three you imply but, which ever one it is, your implied conclusion does not logically follow from the implied premise that “we do not yet know scientifically”.
read this beetle me ol son, just been watching the godfather 2, dont like violence but the story is good!
In view of the DNA-RNA-protein team impasse, some researchers have offered “the RNA world” theory. What is that? Instead of asserting that DNA, RNA, and proteins originated simultaneously to produce life, they say that RNA by itself was the ...[text shortened]... ps the issue by relocating the origin to another solar system or galaxy. The real issue remains.
I assume the reason why you may want to imply such a falsehood is an attempt to justify the claim that a “god” must have created life.
But, obviously, it does NOT ever logically follow from:
1, “we do not know what created/caused X”
that:
2, “a god must have created/caused X”.